Environmental Policy

More DEF Relief? EPA Takes New Action for Farmers and Truckers

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 16:14:41 GMT

On the heels of clarifying farmers’ right to repair their own equipment, EPA is escalating pressure on diesel engine manufacturers over ongoing Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system failures the administration claims continue to sideline farm machinery and trucks.

On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency is demanding detailed failure data from major diesel engine manufacturers as it considers additional rules aimed at reducing DEF-related shutdowns and derates that have plagued farmers, truckers and equipment operators for years.

The move builds directly on Monday’s EPA right-to-repair guidance announcement that clarified the Clean Air Act does not prohibit farmers from fixing their own non-road diesel equipment, which includes making temporary emissions overrides when necessary to complete repairs.

“As I traveled to all 50 states during my first year as EPA administrator, I heard from truck drivers, farmers and many others rightly complaining about DEF and pleading for a fix,” Zeldin said in a statement on Tuesday. “EPA understands this is a massive issue, which is why we have already established commonsense guidance for manufacturers to update DEF systems.

“Today, we are furthering that work and demanding detailed data to hold manufacturers accountable for the continued system failures,” he added.

While neither announcement fully rolls back DEF requirements on tractors, a step many farmers and truckers continue to push for, both signal movement in that direction.

With today’s news in the mix, here’s what farmers and truckers need to know:

1. Increased Operational Up-Time.

The most immediate benefit is the reduction of “forced downtime.” Under the clarified guidance announced on Feb. 2, farmers can now perform temporary emissions overrides to complete essential work, such as planting or harvesting, even if a DEF failure occurs. The extension of warning periods — specifically the 36-hour window for non-road equipment before a derate kicks in — provides a buffer to finish a job before seeking repairs.

2. Legal Empowerment for Repairs.

EPA has explicitly stated the Clean Air Act cannot be used by manufacturers as a shield to prevent farmers from fixing your own equipment. This clarification removes a major legal hurdle in the right-to-repair movement, potentially lowering repair costs by allowing farmers and independent mechanics to access the tools and software needed to address DEF-related faults.

3. Manufacturer Accountability.

Under Section 208(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is demanding warranty and failure data for Model Year 2016, 2019 and 2023 engines from 14 major on-road and non-road diesel manufacturers (covering 80% of the market). That shifts the burden of DEF reliability from the end-user to the manufacturer. EPA says the information will help determine whether persistent DEF problems are tied to specific product generations, system designs or materials, and will inform further regulatory steps in 2026. Manufacturers have 30 days to comply or face potential enforcement actions.

4. Impact on Machinery Values.

Auction data suggests farmers are already voting with their checkbooks. According to Machinery Pete , demand and values remain strongest for pre-DEF used equipment, while interest in DEF-equipped machinery has softened.

If these EPA actions lead to more reliable DEF systems or easier repairs, the high demand (and inflated prices) for older, less efficient equipment might eventually stabilize as newer models become less of a liability in the field.

5. More Changes are Coming.

When asked why EPA has not eliminated DEF requirements entirely,Zeldin said the agency said it is actively building on last summer’s guidance and actively moving toward “common-sense” adjustments that prioritize productivity alongside emissions standards.

EPA’s demand for warranty and failure data follows DEF guidance issued in August 2025 that significantly softened inducement rules. That guidance delayed severe derates, reduced sudden shutdowns and required manufacturers to update software so operators could continue safely working while addressing faults.

For heavy-duty trucks, warning periods were extended to up to 650 miles or 10 hours before derates begin, with weeks of normal operation allowed before speed is limited. Non-road equipment now sees no impact for the first 36 hours after a DEF fault.

EPA has also said that starting with Model Year 2027, new diesel trucks must be engineered to avoid sudden and severe power loss after running out of DEF.

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:44 GMT

Farmers and ranchers could soon face fewer regulatory hurdles when working near waterways, as EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a new proposal on Nov. 17 to redefine “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The agencies say the proposed rule is designed to bring long-requested clarity to what features fall under federal jurisdiction potentially reducing permitting uncertainty for agriculture, landowners and rural businesses.

The proposed rule can be found on the Federal Register . The public can submit comments online there or via Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. During the announcement event on Nov. 17, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin urged the public to submit comments.

The definition of WOTUS determines when producers must secure permits for projects that could affect surface water quality, including common activities such as building terraces, installing drainage or expanding livestock operations. EPA officials say the new proposal aims to align fully with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision and prevent farmers from needing lawyers or consultants simply to determine whether a water feature on their land is federally regulated.

The proposal follows Zeldin’s promise in March to launch the biggest deregulatory action in history and a series of listening sessions in April and May that asked states, tribes, industry and agriculture to weigh in on WOTUS needs.

Clearer Definition After Years of Confusion

Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle emphasize the rule is designed to be clear, durable and commonsense.

Key elements include:

Defined terms such as relatively permanent, continuous surface connection, and tributary to outline which waters qualify under the Clean Water Act.
A requirement that jurisdictional tributaries must have predictable, consistent flow to traditional navigable waters.
Wetlands protections are limited to wetlands that physically touch and are indistinguishable from regulated waters for a consistent duration each year.
Reaffirmed exclusions important to agriculture, including prior converted cropland, certain ditches and waste treatment systems.
A new exclusion for groundwater.
Locally-familiar terminology, such as “wet season,” to help determine whether water features meet regulatory thresholds.

EPA says these changes are intended to reduce uncertainty that has stemmed from years of shifting definitions across administrations.

Impact of WOTUS Proposal on Agriculture

For producers, the proposal could simplify compliance by narrowing which water features fall under federal oversight and confirming exclusions that many farm groups have long advocated.

Zeldin says the aim is “protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution” while preventing unnecessary burdens on farmers and ranchers. He criticizes past Democratic administrations for broad interpretations that, in his view, extended federal reach to features that did not warrant regulation.

Farm groups have argued for years that unclear or overly broad definitions can lead to significant costs, delays and legal risks when planning conservation work, drainage projects or infrastructure improvements. A more consistent rule could reduce project backlogs and limit case-by-case determinations that often slow progress during planting, construction or livestock expansion.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” said Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, during the May 1 EPA listening session for agriculture . He adds: “farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

Several of those who gave testimony and public comment during the ag listening session argued that farmers and ranchers, who already struggle with unpredictable markets and tight margins, shouldn’t have to hire experts to identify elements of their own land.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” says Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who also gave testimony in May.

Alignment With the Sackett Decision

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA ruling , which restricted federal authority over many wetlands, the agencies say the previous WOTUS definition no longer aligned with the law. EPA already issued a memo earlier this year clarifying limits on jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands. The newly proposed rule is the next step in that process.

The proposed rule focuses on relatively permanent bodies of water — streams, rivers, lakes and oceans — and wetlands that are physically connected to those waters. Seasonal and regional variations are incorporated, including waters that flow consistently during the wetter months.

The current situation is a regulatory patchwork. Due to litigation that followed the January 2023 WOTUS rule, which was considered in the Sackett decision, different states are following different rules. Currently, 24 states, mostly the coastal and Great Lakes states, are operating on the 2023 rule, while the other 26 states, mostly those in center and in the Southeast, are operating on pre-2015 WOTUS rule.

Oversight Rests With State and Tribes

A major theme of the proposal is cooperative federalism, giving more authority to states and tribes to manage local land and water resources. EPA says the rule preserves necessary federal protections while recognizing states and tribal governments are best positioned to oversee many smaller or isolated water features.

Sections 101b and 510 of the CWA are key structural examples of the concept of cooperative federalism. The sections give states and tribes the right to set standards and issue permits for federal activities that could discharge pollutants into a water of the U.S. within the state or territory. The most common example of this are 404 dredge and fill permits.

This focus on cooperative federalism was the main chorus of the EPA’s listening session for states , held April 29, especially as it concerns wetlands.

“If more wetlands are excluded from WOTUS, then certain federal projects would not require a section 401 water quality certification by the states,” noted Jennifer Congdon, director of federal affairs for New York Department of Environmental Conservation, during the states’ listening session. She argues that such a situation could impair water quality within a state, thus violating states’ rights under the CWA.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule is available online for public comment on the Federal Register and Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will hold two hybrid public meetings, and details for submitting comments or registering to speak will be available on EPA’s website .

After the comment period, the agencies plan to move quickly toward a final rule.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office told The Packer earlier this summer .

Based on these potential timelines, a new — potentially final — WOTUS rule could take effect as early as early March.

California's Water Crisis: Farmers Warn Water Rules Could Cripple Central Valley Agriculture

Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:52:47 GMT

On Hansen Ranch in the Central Valley, fifth-generation farmer Erik Hansen grows a little bit of everything — pistachios, almonds, pomegranates, alfalfa, corn for silage and cotton.

“We farm 15, 16 different crops,” Hansen says. “Cotton is our biggest acreage crop, and that’s in the form of Pima cotton.”

That diversification has long been the Hansen family’s survival strategy. But in spring 2023, no amount of crop rotation could shield them from disaster.

“Where we’re standing right now was underwater,” Hansen recalls. “A mile from here, over by that PG&E substation, was the edge of the lake.”

The flood wiped out 600 acres of pomegranates and 400 acres of pistachios. One thousand acres of permanent crops gone in one season.

“It was a massive hit,” Hansen says. “We had about 5,000 to 6,000 acres under water. Some of that water lasted for over a year.”

From Too Much Water to Not Enough

The irony is hard to ignore: In 2023, floodwaters destroyed thousands of acres. Now, Hansen says it’s the lack of access to water that could cripple farms across the Central Valley.

“The last projections I heard were anywhere from 1 million to 1.2 million acres totaled in the valley,” he says, referring to farmland that could be idled by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) .

Passed in 2014, SGMA requires local agencies to reduce groundwater overdraft and achieve sustainable use by 2040. On paper, Hansen says, that makes sense.

“To some extent it is good because you have to have a way to manage the overdraft,” he explains. “The problem is there are surface water facilities we developed back in the 50s and 60s that we’re just not using. A lot of that water is going out to the Pacific Ocean.”

For Hansen, the politics sting. He believes decades of state decisions — prioritizing fish and wildlife, reallocating water, and neglecting infrastructure — set up today’s crisis.

“I’m frustrated because the families that have been farming here for years, some decades, sometimes even more, are being footed with a bill for problems that somebody else created,” Hansen says. “If the state doesn’t look in the mirror, I think we’re going to find ourselves in the same position again.”

Young Farmers Face the Same Struggles

Forty miles south, 30-year-old Elizabeth Keenan is navigating the same regulatory headwinds. Her grandfather Charlie started Keenan Farms in 1972, acquiring one of California’s first pistachio orchards. Today, Elizabeth farms alongside her parents and brother.

“Rolling with the regulatory punches can be complicated,” she admits. “Despite pistachios being such a high-value product, despite having optimal land and weather conditions, we really have everything set up beautifully — except for legislation.”

Water, she says, is the most difficult hurdle.

“We’re up to a 50% allocation,” Keenan explains. “The base allocation is 2.2 acre-feet, so we get 1.1 acre-feet to use. Otherwise, we have to have open fallow fields. To pump more water, we have to buy it on the open market, and that’s expensive too.”

A Political Battle Over Flows

Signs line highways across the Central Valley warning that 80% of California’s river water flows out to the Pacific instead of farms. Assemblyman David Tangipa, a freshman lawmaker representing the 8^th District, says those numbers are real.

“It’s 100% happening,” Tangipa says. “Almost 83% of all water in the state is automatically pushed out for environmental purposes.”

California averages about 200 million acre-feet of water each year, Tangipa notes, but despite record rainfall, farms often get less than half of their allocations.

“We’ve prioritized so much environmental legislation that more than 80% of our water is pushed out immediately to the ocean, unnaturally,” he says. “Meanwhile, farmers get less water and more land goes out of production.”

Proponents of Current Water Flows

There are proponents of the current way the water flows, mainly for environmental reasons and to prevent saltwater contamination of freshwater sources.

California releases water into the ocean to prevent saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies, protect endangered aquatic species and ecosystems, and maintain the delicate balance of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary, a critical source of drinking and irrigation water.

A portion of released water is also used for stormwater management to prevent flooding, as it can be difficult and impractical to capture and store all of it.

And those in favor of environmental water releases say it’s essential to support broader ecosystem benefits like water filtration and carbon sequestration, which are important for overall environmental health.

The Ripple Effect

The Central Valley of California is a powerhouse in food production for the U.S. That area alone produces approximately half of all the fruits and vegetables grown in the U.S., as well as a large portion of the nation’s nuts and other foods. When you break down the numbers, the Central Valley accounts for about 60% of the nation’s fruits and nuts, and about 30% of the nation’s vegetables.

For Thomas Putzel, who works with farmers across the Central Valley, the impact of regulations isn’t just measured in acre-feet. It’s measured in livelihoods and the food supply.

“The environmentalists try to say farmers are wasting water,” he says. “But when we look at what farmers provide, we’re planting forests. One acre of almonds will capture 18 metric tons of carbon a year. That’s like taking 29 million cars off the road.”

Putzel says California voters already approved a water bond to build new storage a decade ago, but no new projects have been built.

“Not one shovel has gone in the ground in 10 years,” he says. “Actually, they took some of that money and tore dams down.”

Meanwhile, permanent crops wither when water isn’t available, leaving behind dead orchards that invite pests and rodents into neighboring fields.

“SGMA’s not necessarily a bad thing,” Putzel says. “But you’ve asked growers to run a marathon with their legs tied together. People don’t understand; food doesn’t come from a grocery store. It comes from a farmer. If California stopped shipping produce for one week, our stores would be empty.”

“Is Farming in California’s Best Interest?”

For Erik Hansen, the question is bigger than water allocations or acreage lost.

“Government is probably the biggest problem right now,” he says. “It just seems California hasn’t really decided whether farming is in their best interest. Politicians like to say they’re for small business and small farming, but virtually every piece of legislation makes it more difficult to survive.”

As the Central Valley wrestles with the challenges of floods, drought and regulations, one reality is clear: The fate of these farms is tied not just to weather and soil but to political decisions that could shape the future of food in America.

USDA Ends Programs for Solar, Wind Projects On Farms

Tue, 19 Aug 2025 17:54:11 GMT

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will no longer support solar and wind projects on productive farmland, said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in a post on X on Monday.

The move is the latest in a series of actions by the administration of President Donald Trump to stall development of wind and solar energy, which Trump says are unreliable, expensive and dependent on Chinese supply chains.

“Millions of acres of prime farmland is left unusable so Green New Deal subsidized solar panels can be built. This destruction of our farms and prime soil is taking away the futures of the next generation of farmers and the future of our country,” Rollins said on X.

The USDA has provided over $2 billion for renewable energy projects, like solar and wind, through its Rural Energy for America Program, according to the agency website. The agency has also supported clean energy projects for rural electric cooperatives.

The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

About 424,000 acres (1,715 square kilometers) of rural land were affected by wind turbines and solar farms in 2020, less than 0.05% of the nearly 900 million acres used for farmland, according to a 2024 USDA study. Most of that land stayed in agricultural production after the development of the solar or wind projects, the study found.

The administration of former President Joe Biden supported solar and wind projects in rural areas and on farms as part of its effort to cut climate-harming emissions and make clean energy more affordable.

(Reporting by Leah Douglas in Washington and Nichola Groom in Los Angeles, CA; Editing by Leslie Adler, Chizu Nomiyama and Marguerita Choy)

Farmers, Truckers and Gear Heads Rejoice: EPA Rolls Out Streamlined Diesel Engine Fluid Guidelines

Tue, 12 Aug 2025 18:04:22 GMT

EPA is rolling out new guidance for manufacturers of farm equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, removing regulatory red tape requiring diesel-powered farm equipment to reduce engine torque dramatically when a problem arises with the machine’s Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system.

You can read EPA’s statement on the announcement here.

The new rule making goes into effect immediately for all new diesel engines on model year 2027 machines. It should also be noted the new guidance from EPA is voluntary for all non road equipment. Ultimately, each manufacturer will have the right to choose whether it implements the new inducement strategy or maintains the status quo with its own machines.

To fix the problem for farm machinery already in the field, EPA’s new guidance, developed in collaboration with farm equipment manufacturers, will work to ensure necessary software changes can be made on the existing fleet.

(EPA)

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin says now all non-road equipment, like farm tractors, combines and sprayers, must be configured so there is no impact on engine power for up to 36 hours when a DEF system malfunction occurs. Once 36 engine hours have passed, a 25% reduction in engine torque will go into effect until the machine is serviced. If the farm equipment is not fixed within 100 engine hours, then a 50% reduction in torque is activated until the machine can be serviced.

Additionally, farm equipment can be restarted with full engine power three times for up to 30 minutes after inducement, according to the EPA release.

“This is the first crack in the ice toward saying we don’t need these expensive systems on our farm equipment,” says Ben Reinsche, owner, Blue Diamond Farming Company in Jesup, Iowa. “We don’t need to immediately shut off an engine or be restricted for 36 hours if you have DEF unavailable or a malfunction.

“This is a positive step and maybe a formative step toward saying that having these emission standards on farm or off-road equipment is not critically necessary,” adds Reinsche. “There are so many other things farmers can do that are planet positive, like using conservation and sustainability practices, rather than having an after treatment system on our diesel engines.”

Small Business Administration (SBA) leader Kelly Loeffler says the new rule will save 1.8 million family farms across America a staggering $727 million per year while offering “vital financial and operational certainty.”

“This announcement today is such a big deal, especially on behalf of our farmers and ranchers,” says USDA secretary Brook Rollins. “At a time when our ag sector is really hurting, our farmers have had to endure a 30% cost increase in inputs, and a $30 billion Biden-era trade deficit, these everyday regulations being lifted makes such a difference.”

The new guidance greatly reduces a machine setting known as DEF derating and allows operators more time to secure DEF, refuel and make repairs. The new guidance also reportedly retains the environmental benefits of Tier 4 engine and DEF regulations for farm equipment and trucks.

“Today we are taking another important step forward by undoing these diesel fluid guidelines that have hurt our farmers and small rural businesses,” says U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa). “Not only will these new guidelines save family-run farms hundreds of millions of dollars per year, but it is also just common sense, folks. No farmer should have their tractor come to a halt in the middle of a field due to Green New Deal-style regulations from Washington.”

How Did We Get Here?

EPA ushered in DEF requirements for large farm equipment when it enacted broader Tier 4 emissions standards in 2004.

Tier 4 Interim rules, which required DEF for farm machines 750 horsepower and up, then went into effect in 2008.

In 2015, EPA’s final Tier 4 regulations were put in place, meaning all new non-road diesel engines — regardless of horsepower rating — had to comply with new emissions standards.

Curious where your farm equipment is made? Check out Farm Journal’s “Who Makes What Where” feature to learn more.

Why Do Many Farmers Hate Using Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF)?

American farmers say they detest using DEF due to the challenges and additional fuel cost it tacks onto their operations.

Here are some reasons farmers aren’t big fans of DEF:

Higher Costs and More Maintenance: DEF adds on extra materials costs for machinery-based field work. Farmers must purchase large amounts of fluid, and the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) framework that processes DEF is prone to malfunctions and expensive to repair. Often a simple-but-unexpected repair can pop up out of nowhere and end up costing farmers thousands of dollars and leave equipment inoperable.
Field Work Interruptions: If a tractor runs out of DEF or if the system breaks down, under the now-defunct previous guidelines engine power was greatly reduced, which is known by many farmers as “going into limp mode.” For farmers who rely on their equipment to operate consistently and reliably during planting and harvesting, any issue quickly becomes a major headache.
Storage Issues: DEF has a limited shelf life and is sensitive to temperature ups and downs. A quick Google search says DEF freezes at around 12°F and can degrade if stored in temperatures above 86°F. And who wants to look at a giant pallet of DEF cartons stacked in their machinery barn? Nobody, that’s who.
Contamination/Quality Control: DEF fluid must be pure and free of contaminants. Accidentally using the wrong type or getting foreign substances in the tank during refilling can wreak havoc throughout the system, leading to repairs and downtime.
Engine Performance Concerns: There are farmers who believe newer emissions systems, including those that use DEF, reduce the machine’s total power output and lower fuel efficiency.

Your Next Read: MAHA Policy Announcement Delayed, Agriculture Waits For Any Implications From Earlier Report

MAHA Policy Announcement Delayed, Agriculture Waits For Any Implications From Earlier Report

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 21:40:07 GMT

In late May, farmers and the agricultural industry were bracing for the release of the Make America Healthy Again report, which was to focus on children’s health and chronic diseases. Then came the 68-page report, which was responded to by farmers and  more than 300 agriculture organizations  sharing their concerns. Per the President’s executive order establishing the timeline for the MAHA report, policy recommendations were to be given to the president by Aug. 12.

Today, the White House said to not expect MAHA policy recommendations to be announced tomorrow. The Commission will deliver its recommendations by the deadline, per the executive order, however, per White House spokesman Kush Desai schedules of the President and cabinet members need to be coordinated for the public announcement.

Particularly in focus for the agricultural groups in their response to the MAHA movement has been any references to three crop protection active ingredients: glyphosate, atrazine and chloripyrifos. These three were included in the MAHA report as a list of products that can contribute to chronic disease in children.

In its response to the MAHA report, National Corn Growers Association said its findings show that if the three pesticides were to disappear completely, crop yields could decrease by more than 70% due to pests, weeds and disease.

Politico reported on unnamed sources saying the White House has been meeting with stakeholder groups leading up to the policy announcements.

Public Comments Open on USDA’s NEPA Cuts

Thu, 03 Jul 2025 20:28:06 GMT

USDA has proposed sweeping cuts in how it implements a law requiring public participation in its environmental actions. And the public can comment on it.

On July 3, USDA published a proposed interim final rule in the Federal Register that will change how the agency implements the National Environmental Policy Act . The move will drastically cut NEPA regulations from USDA processes.

Very generally, the proposed changes alter how and when USDA and its agencies can conduct environmental assessments, when environmental impact statements must be issued, and how they can be dealt with. These include extensive rescinding of NEPA regulations from USDA agency actions and making several USDA agencies mostly to entirely exempt from NEPA regulations.

The public can submit comments on the move via the Federal Register or Regulations.gov through July 30.

What’s behind these NEPA changes

NEPA is one of the oldest comprehensive environmental regulations in the U.S., signed into law Jan. 1, 1970. It requires federal entities to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed actions, document their findings and make them available for public comment.

But the requirements have long been criticized for leading to endless litigation.

“USDA is updating and modernizing NEPA so projects critical to the health of our forests and prosperity of rural America are not stymied and delayed for years,” says U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in a June 30 news release ahead of the proposed interim final rule being published. She characterizes NEPA as an overly burdensome regulation. USDA describes its proposed changes as “resulting in a 66% reduction in regulations.”

USDA isn’t the only department making such moves, however. The Department of Transportation , Department of Energy , Department of Defense , and many others announced similar proposals. The different departments used similar language, describing the changes as “cutting red tape” and likely to minimize time-consuming litigation over agency projects.

Earthjustice, an environmental law firm frequently involved in NEPA-related lawsuits, characterizes the moves as cutting the public out of the federal decision-making process, however.

“NEPA — the People’s Environmental Law — plays a vital role in ensuring that government decisions are transparent, well-informed and accountable to the public,” says Andre Segura, Earthjustice vice president of litigation.

The government-wide moves to change how NEPA is implemented in federal departments are the result of several recent legislative and regulatory changes:

The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 , in part, amended how NEPA should be implemented.
President Donald Trump’s Unleashing American Energy executive order directed the Council on Environmental Quality to provide guidance on how departments and agencies should implement some parts of NEPA and rescind others.
On Feb. 19, the CEQ issued a guidance memorandum directing federal agencies to revise their NEPA implementing procedures “to expedite permitting approvals” and to be consistent with the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

USDA change details

USDA’s proposed changes include the agency-wide removal of several sections of NEPA ( 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 ). These sections deal with definitions, purpose and scope, compliance details, dispute resolution processes and decision-making processes among other topics.

These sections also include removal of some public comment elements. For example, Part 1503 outlines that draft environmental impact statements be made available to the public and appropriate stakeholders for comment. The proposed changes would alter this requirement, noting: “…a request for comment may be undertaken at any time that is reasonable in the process of preparing an EIS, as the publication of a draft EIS is no longer required.”

The changes also note that obtaining and addressing comments must not extend the new EIS deadlines outlined in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

The proposed changes also remove various NEPA regulations from specific USDA agencies . Some agencies, such as the Agriculture Research Service, are being made exempt from NEPA regulations entirely with minor exceptions.

Examples of change topics of note from USDA’s proposed changes:

Applicability of NEPA: “NEPA does not apply to “non-Federal actions”; therefore, under the terms of the statute, NEPA does not apply to actions with no or minimal federal funding, or with no or minimal federal involvement where a federal agency cannot control the outcome of the proposal.”
Scope of significance in environmental effects: “When defining considerations for significance, USDA is using the concept of “affected environment” and a list of types of effects that include both short- and long-term effects, both beneficial and adverse effects, effects on public health and safety, economic effects, and effects on the quality of life of the American people.”
Notice-and-comment procedures are not required: “…although USDA is voluntarily providing notice and an opportunity to comment on this interim final rule, it has determined that notice-and-comment procedures prior to issuance are not required [for agency NEPA reviews].”

US EPA Plans to Cut Staff to 1980s Levels, Dissolve Research Office

Mon, 05 May 2025 18:41:07 GMT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans on Friday to slash its budget by $300 million in fiscal year 2026, reduce staffing to 1980s levels and dissolve its research and development office as part of a sweeping overhaul of the agency.

The reorganization will consolidate several key offices, reflecting plans to cut regulatory red tape and promote more energy development, as laid out in President Donald Trump’s executive orders, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a video message.

“With these organizational improvements, we can assure the American people that we are dedicated to EPA’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment,” Zeldin said, adding the agency will be better positioned to match Trump’s goals to “unleash American energy, revitalize domestic manufacturing, cut costs for families and pursue permitting reform.”

Critics including the Union of Concerned Scientists said the staff cuts and changes in organization of the EPA would force staff members to follow the political program of the president rather than scientific evidence.

Zeldin said EPA staffing will fall to a level last seen when President Ronald Reagan occupied the White House in the 1980s, when the agency was led by an administrator who was critical of it. In 1984, the EPA had just over 11,400 staff members compared
to more than 15,100 in 2024.

The reorganization follows weeks of speculation about staff cuts and Zeldin announcing the cancellation of billions of dollars of EPA grants.

Major changes to the agency’s structure include shifting scientific research from the Office of Research and Development to different program offices, such as a new office of applied science that would align research with the politically-appointed administrator’s policy priorities.

Researchers had warned that dissolving the research unit would undermine scientific independence.

The EPA also announced it was dissolving the Office of Science and Technology, which helped develop scientific research and guidelines for water policy.

Other changes will include creation of an Office of State Air Partnerships within EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation that will work with state permitting agencies to resolve permitting concerns and process state plans to meet federal rules.

It will also add 130 positions to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention to work on reviewing a backlog of over 504 new chemicals and over 12,000 pesticides.

The 1,500 research and development staff would need to apply for around 400 of the newly created positions in other offices, employees were told in an all-hands meeting at EPA on Friday. It was not clear what would happen to those employees that do not get new positions.

The agency extended the deadline by a week, to May 5, for accepting a deferred resignation for employees.

The EPA will also elevate issues of cybersecurity, emergency response, and water reuse and conservation, it said.

Advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday said that shuttering the EPA’s scientific arm that conducts independent research and folding it into policy offices will turn the EPA into a purely political agency.

“Dismantling this office, along with the administration’s plans to reclassify scientists as political appointees ... could very well turn a premier science agency into a political arm of the president,” said Chitra Kumar, managing director of UCS’ Climate and Clean Energy Program.

(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Leslie Adler and Nia Williams)

Mexico Will Send More Water to Texas to Make Up Treaty Shortfall, USDA Says

Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:11:02 GMT

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Monday that Mexico would increase its water shipments to Texas to help make up a shortfall under a 1944 treaty that outlines water-sharing between the countries.

U.S. officials and lawmakers have complained that Mexico’s failure to meet its obligations under the treaty is harming Texas farmers.

Mexico has argued that it is under drought conditions that have strained the country’s water resources.

“After weeks of negotiations with Mexican cabinet officials alongside the Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, we secured an agreement to give Texas producers the water they need to thrive. While this is a significant step forward, we welcome Mexico’s continued cooperation to support the future of American agriculture,” Rollins said in a statement.

🚨In President Trump’s first 100 days, we have secured an agreement with Mexico alongside @DeputySecState for an immediate transfer of water from international reservoirs to Texas farmers.

This will meet the immediate needs of American farmers and ranchers, and sets the stage…
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 28, 2025

Earlier this month, Reuters reported that the water issue had emerged as a possible new front in trade negotiations between the two countries.

The water treaty requires Mexico to send 1.75 million acre-feet of water to the U.S. from the Rio Grande every five years.

Mexico will now “transfer water from international reservoirs and increase the U.S. share of the flow in six of Mexico’s Rio Grande tributaries through the end of the current five-year water cycle,” which ends in October, said a USDA statement.

My gratitude to President Trump and Secretary Rollins. They have delivered as promised for our farmers. Mexico will meet its treaty obligations and provide south Texas water as required.
— Sid Miller (@MillerForTexas) April 29, 2025

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce in a statement thanked Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum “for her personal involvement in facilitating cooperation across multiple levels of her government to establish a unified path to addressing this ongoing priority.”

Mexico’s government released its own statement later on Monday saying it would implement “a series of measures aimed at mitigating potential shortfalls in water deliveries” including immediate water transfers as well as during the upcoming rainy season.

“All of these actions have as their fundamental premise the assurance of water supplies for human consumption for the Mexican populations that depend on the waters of the Rio Grande,” the statement said.

Your Next Read:
Tiny Farm Town Defies Feds, Drains Water to Protect Citizens

Can Mexico Afford to Retaliate Against the U.S.?

Trump Administration Celebrates Earth Day by Spotlighting 'Unfair Trade Practices' That Harm Environment

Tue, 22 Apr 2025 15:32:20 GMT

The United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Office took to social media to celebrate Earth Day, but with a twist. In honor of Earth Day, the Trump administration outlined a list of 10 “unfair trade practices that harm the environment and undercut U.S. producers and exporters.” Of the 10 items on the list, two directly mentioned agriculture.

The No. 1 issue, according to USTR, is deforestation in Brazil. The Trade Representative’s office says deforestation in Brazil reached a 15-year high in 2021, which was driven by “weak environmental regulations and lax law enforcement.” They went on to say that due to those issues, Brazilian ranchers were given an unfair advantage in agricultural production.

“In 2024, the U.S. had an agricultural trade deficit with Brazil of $7 billion. Brazil is a major competitor with the U.S. in soybeans, corn, meat, poultry and other agricultural products,” the official United States Trade Representative’s posted on X on Tuesday.

In honor of #EarthDay, USTR is spotlighting 10 unfair trade practices that harm the environment and undercut U.S. producers and exporters. pic.twitter.com/4xdJfVa1tN
— United States Trade Representative (@USTradeRep) April 22, 2025

To fully understand the issue, you must first understand just how massive the forest area is in Brazil.

Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world with a surface of 850 million hectares. That’s twice as big as the European Union. And nearly two-thirds of that is occupied by forest.

Deforestation has been a long-standing issue within Brazil. In fact, the Brazilian Amazon has the highest rate of deforestation of the planet. The ecosystem, which is known as one of the richest on Earth, is massive. A study based on satellite images by the National Institute for Space Research of Brazil (INPE) found a total loss of 72 million hectares since 1970, or 17% of its total area.

Deforestation Fuels Growth in Brazil’s Beef Production
Deforestation in Brazil is directly tied to agricultural production, really impacting commodities like beef and soybeans.

For beef production, ground zero for deforestation is in the Amazon and Cerrado regions. Cattle ranching is known as a major driver of deforestation, with ranchers often clearing new land for pasture as existing pastures become less productive, leading to a cycle of forest conversion.

The map shows the amount of forests around the world replaced by cattle, which paints the picture of just how severe the situation is in Brazil.

(World Resources Institute )

According to the World Resources Institute, cattle replaced nearly twice as much forest as all other commodities combined. The Institute analyzed seven commodities total, finding cattle pasture now occupies 45.1 million hectares (Mha) of land deforested between 2001 and 2015, accounting for 36% of all tree cover loss associated with agriculture during the time period.

Oil palm ranks second (10.5 Mha), followed by soy (8.2 Mha). The number has only grown since then.

The Role of Deforestation in Brazil’s Growing Soybean Production
When it comes to soy production, deforestation in regions like the Mato Grosso state are linked to deforestation as land is cleared for soy plantations, according to the World Resources Institute.

But it’s not just deforestation leading to the explosion in growth of soybean acres in Brazil. Based on geospatial databases, a recent study led by Embrapa found approximately 70 million acres of planted pastures in Brazil with intermediate and severe levels of degradation that have the potential for conversion into cropland. Pasture degradation is caused by overgrazing, insufficient weed and pest control, and lack of soil fertilization and occurs in practically all regions of Brazil.

The report by Embrapa also found a conversion of 70 million acres of degraded pasture to cropland would represent nearly a 35% increase in Brazil’s total planted area compared with the 2023/2024 crop season projection by the National Supply Company (Conab) – Brazil’s agency for food supply and statistics.

According to University of Illinois farmdoc daily , in Mato Grosso, which is Brazil’s largest agricultural state, the planted area could increase by 25% compared to the 2023/2024 season by converting degraded pastureland into cropland. Currently, soybeans and corn occupy more than 90% of the crop-planted area in Mato Grosso in the double-cropping system.

Additionally, in the Center-West states, the potential for agricultural expansion is notably higher in Mato Grosso do Sul and Goiás, reaching 69% and 67%, respectively, compared to the acreage in the current crop season.
·
#7 Environmental Issue on the List: Mexico’s Avacados
The U.S. is the top destination for Mexico’s avocado exports. USTR says in 2023, those exports were valued at $2.7 billion, and some of that production was harvested on illegally deforested lands.

“Some Mexican avocado producers have expanded avocado production to illegally deforested lands, threatening biodiversity and disrupting local ecosystems, including the forest habitat of monarch butterflies,” USTR said on “X.”

Fair Trade USA Serves Up Solutions
It’s a known issue within the produce industry. According to Farm Journal’s The Packer , Fair Trade USA is offering solutions to producers and retailers seeking ways to improve environmental and human rights conditions in the avocado sector.

The Packer reports an estimated one-third of all avocado farms in Mexico are reported to be illegal farms, and up to 70,000 acres in Michoacán and neighboring state of Jalisco have been deforested for avocado farming in the last decade, the release said. Fair Trade USA said water reservoirs are being illegally emptied to support farming, and farmers who speak out against deforestation and working conditions are often at risk.

The organization said western demand for avocados has grown exponentially over the last decade, and people and the planet are paying the price. Forced to keep pace with what farmers call the “avocado gold rush,” negative environmental impacts are rampant in many avocado farming regions — for communities as well as production.

“Fair Trade USA exists to partner with farms, workers, retailers and brands to create safe and fair working conditions and protect the environment,” said Felipe Arango, who was serving as interim CEO for Fair Trade USA. “Strong standards are needed to better the avocado industry, and we are excited to partner with producers to certify more farms and improve the lives of farmers.”

Avocado Institute of Mexico Rolls Out “Path to Sustainability” Plan
The Avocado Institute of Mexico announced their “Path to Sustainability” last week. The plan includes dealing with deforestation. The summary of the plan includes:

Collaboration with governmental authorities to achieve net-zero deforestation by 2035.
The Avocado Landscape Restoration and Reforestation Project, which has planted more than 3.6 million pine trees in the Avocado Landscape.

“We are dedicated to protecting, managing, conserving and restoring forests in the Avocado Landscape to achieve net-zero deforestation,” the Avocado Institute of Mexico said.

Pro-Forest Avocado Program
There’s also another program to help wean Mexican avocado growers off the need to produce avocados on illegally deforested land. According to Grist , there’s a Pro-Forest Avocado program, which is a Mexican initiative to certify sustainably grown avocados. An estimated 10% of avocado packing houses that send avocados to the United States have signed on to the Pro-Forest Avocado program. However, it has roadblocks to increasing participation.

According to Grist, the first is that growers must pay for the certification, while packagers get it for free. This has made many growers feel like they have to comply with standards and pay for them to offload produce at all. There’s a lot of distrust among producers of the government as well.

For this program, qualifying growers must have had no deforestation since 2018, no forest fires since 2012 and not operate on protected land.

Your Next Read:

Brazilian Soy Exporters Want Changes to Deforestation Regs

Tariffs Aren’t Going To Be Our Largest Trade Issue

Report shows Mexican avocado imports fuel U.S. economic growth

EPA sessions seek input on WOTUS rework

Mon, 21 Apr 2025 14:57:45 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency will begin a series of five listening sessions next week on defining “waters of the United States” — or WOTUS — following the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against the agency . Beginning April 29, the sessions aim to get “targeted input” from stakeholders.

The EPA is asking for input on topics including the concepts of “continuous surface connection” and “relatively permanent,” as well as jurisdictional versus non-jurisdictional ditches.

Listening sessions are scheduled for:

Tuesday, April 29, 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET — Session for states (virtual and in person in Washington, D.C.).
Wednesday, April 30, 1-3:30 p.m. ET — Session for tribes (virtual).
Thursday, May 1, 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET — Session for industry and agriculture (virtual and in person in Washington, D.C.).
Thursday, May 1, 1-3:30 p.m. ET: — Session for environmental and conservation (virtual and in person in Washington, D.C.).
To be determined — session for the public.

Participants must register to attend the listening sessions. Visit the EPA’s WOTUS outreach and engagement page to register .

To attend in-person, participants must register at least 48 hours ahead of the event. Virtual listening sessions will be held via Zoom. Participants can preregister to give a three-minute testimony, but speaking slots are limited and given out on a first-come, first-served basis

Your next read:

Will Europe's Farmer Protests Make Their Way To The U.S.?

Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:11:09 GMT

In case you haven’t heard, farmers across Europe are fed up with their politicians and bureaucrats telling them how to farm. Such sentiment is nothing new. What is new is that the level of frustration has grown to the point where thousands of farmers are taking to the streets with their 15-ton tractors and marching to the capitals and major cities of European countries to give government officials a message: enough already.

For those of us old enough to remember, this moment has a bit of historical déjà vu to it. Flash back to the late 1970s when on this side of the pond, Washington, D.C. was stormed by thousands of farmers driving their tractors to protest critically low commodities prices, higher input costs, falling land values and rising interest rates. This was the warning shot signaling even more dire times to come as the farm crisis of the 1980s followed.

Now, nearly 45 years later, the flame still burns. But this time the fire is taking off in Europe. The ingredients for the discontent are much the same—low prices, costly inputs, high interest rates and so forth. However, the recipe has added an ingredient that has quickly become the biggest fly in the soup as far as European farmers are concerned.

Policy Pushback
The European Green Deal, approved in 2020, is a set of policy initiatives established by the European Commission. Its overarching aim is to make the European Union (EU) climate-neutral by 2050. For European farmers, one of the most controversial components of the deal was the goal to reduce chemical fertilizer and pesticide use by 50% by 2030. That, combined with plans to idle more farmland to increase land biodiversity and forests, along with very little funding directed to farmers to facilitate and harbor such a transition, set the stage for a revolt.

From Berlin and Paris to Brussels and Bucharest, European farmers have driven their tractors to the streets in protest in recent weeks. In Germany, an estimated 30,000 protestors and thousands of tractors brought Berlin’s city centre “to a standstill” in mid-January due to dissatisfaction with the government over the cutting of agricultural fuel subsidies. The protests in France erupted over plans to reduce agricultural fuel subsidies and the government’s push to halve pesticide use by the end of this decade.

The situation escalated to a point where farmers sprayed manure on a local government building in the city of Dijon. In Paris, hundreds of tractors blocked off major roads into the country’s capital in what was called the “siege of Paris” by many media outlets—one of which being BBC News.

By mid-February, protests had spread to other European countries including Italy, Greece, Belgium, Poland, Spain and even Romania and Lithuania. There seems to be no sign of this fire going out any time soon. All the politicians can hope for is that springtime and Mother Nature will draw the farmers and their tractors back to their fields to sow their spring crops and allow the political firestorm to cool off.

But hope is not a strategy, and European farmers know it. Now the question may be how much of the “green gains” are EU’s leaders willing to concede in order to save their political hide. The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, now intends to scrap the plan to halve pesticide use. It also decided to exclude the agricultural sector from the strict timeline for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 90% before 2040. In Germany, farmers gained some concessions from the government on the issue of fuel subsidies but continue their demand for full reinstatement. On Feb. 1 in France, the main farmer unions called for an end to the protests after “securing promises of governmental assistance” on finance and regulatory issues. And in the EU’s home base, farmers “won their first concession from Brussels” after the commission proposed to delay rules for setting aside land for biodiversity.

Whether it is luck, strategy or irony on the part of the farmers, Europe’s reassessment of its climate policies comes as the bloc approaches EU parliamentary elections in June. The elections are expected to bring more far-right and fringe lawmakers into Parliament. Already, the continent’s political pundits are saying the next political cycle (2024-29) “will undoubtedly be less green to the point of putting into question the implementation of the green new deal.” Plus, the recent protests “are just a prelude of the further clashes to come.”

Too Many Sticks, Too Few Carrots
Will this fire jump the pond, and could we once again see tractors showing up on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.? Need I remind you, it is an election year here, too.

It is unfair and unwise to think farmers—no matter the continent where they live—are going to carry the costs of going green on their backs alone. At some point, all this needs to stop being an academic exercise and become an economic one. Start paying more to the farmer for carbon credits. Provide the tax incentives to finance the transition to “greener” farms. And stop with the rhetoric that burping cows are going to cause the next apocalypse.

Down on the farm in the U.S., the green agenda is at a crossroads. The question will be whether we will make the same mistakes Europe did and try to drive a green agenda too fast with a stick-heavy approach. The first litmus test may come sooner rather than later as Congress still has a new farm bill to pass. It is expected to be the “greenest” farm bill on record. This election year, given what’s happening in Europe, will our politicians pile on the carrots instead of giving us more sticks? Come November election time, we will see which road we are headed down.

Biden-Harris administration announces 'National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution'

Fri, 22 Nov 2024 13:50:51 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency has released its “ National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution ,” outlining opportunities for action to protect communities from the impacts of plastic production and waste.

The document also details how government agencies, businesses, nonprofits and communities can take additional action to prevent plastic pollution, according to a news release.

The strategy also aligns with the U.S. commitment to negotiating an ambitious international agreement with the aim of protecting public health and the environment by reducing plastic pollution around the world, the EPA said. The strategy is the third pillar of EPA’s “Building a Circular Economy for All” effort, following national strategies on recycling and reducing food loss and waste , according to the release.

“EPA’s new strategy to prevent plastic pollution will have a profound impact on public health and our environment, especially in overburdened communities hit hardest,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “From reducing cancer-causing pollution from plastic manufacturing facilities, to increasing industry’s accountability to take back recycled plastic packaging, to capturing waste before it ends up in our bodies and the environment, this strategy lays out the path forward for EPA and our partners to tackle this persistent challenge.”

Example actions from the strategy include:

Reducing the production and consumption of single-use plastic products and increasing the U.S. capacity to reuse and refill products, including in the federal government.
Measuring the environmental and human health impacts throughout the life cycle of single-use products.
Enhancing public policies and incentives to decrease plastic pollution, including working with others to create a national extended producer responsibility framework.

These actions are in addition to steps that are already underway to reduce plastic waste, the release said:

EPA’s Trash Free Waters Program will strengthen its emphasis on preventing trash from entering the environment, removing trash in and around waterways, and disseminating research findings.
EPA set enforceable wastewater standards for industry and has developed national water quality criteria recommendations for pollutants in surface waters. In 2024, EPA finalized new requirements for facilities to develop and submit response plans for worst-case discharges of hazardous substances under the Clean Water Act, including many chemicals used in plastic manufacturing.
EPA finalized rules in 2024 to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants including ethylene oxide and chloroprene, which will result in significant reductions in harmful air pollution in local communities near plastic production facilities, including communities with environmental justice concerns.
EPA’s Risk Management Program rule sets requirements to protect vulnerable communities from chemical accidents, especially those living near facilities in industry sectors with high accident rates, including certain plastic manufacturing facilities. In the spring of 2024, EPA finalized the Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention rule .
EPA’s Environmental Justice Grants and Technical Assistance Program offers a variety of funding opportunities for projects that focus on plastic pollution reduction.
In addition, the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided EPA with funding to support implementing this strategy through the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling and Recycling Education and Outreach grant programs. This includes funding for improvements to reuse and recycling infrastructure, for education and outreach, and for waste reduction plans.
EPA launched a new platform containing the initial actions EPA is taking to implement our series of strategies on “Building a Circular Economy for All.”

EPA is issuing this national strategy as the international community gathers in Busan, South Korea, for the final meeting of the International Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. The strategy will help inform the international community of the wide range of actions available and already taken in the U.S., the release said.

In the bipartisan Save Our Seas 2.0 Act of 2020, Congress charged EPA with developing a strategy to reduce plastic waste and other post-consumer materials in waterways and oceans. EPA published the draft strategy in April 2023 and received nearly 92,000 comments during the public comment period.

The agency’s updated strategy incorporates that feedback and affirms EPA’s commitment to eliminating the release of plastic waste into the environment by 2040, according to the EPA. The opportunities for action in this strategy are designed to combat climate change through greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with the life cycle of plastic products and to reduce public health impacts to communities overburdened by pollution, the release said.

EPA, with input from industry and trade organizations, national and community-based non-profit organizations, government agencies, tribes and private individuals, identified objectives and actions to address environmental and human health concerns by eliminating U.S. release of plastic into the environment and reducing exposure to plastic pollution.

The “National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution” follows the “National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics” and builds on EPA’s “National Recycling Strategy” by identifying actions needed to reduce and recover plastic and other materials, as well as prevent plastic pollution from harming human health and the environment. These actions support a circular economy approach to the management of plastic products — an approach that is regenerative by design, ensuring resources retain value for as long as possible, the release said. It aligns with the White House’s 2024 report, “ Mobilizing Federal Action on Plastic Pollution: Progress, Principles and Priorities ,” which presents a plan for federal action.

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:58:52 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump has selected former New York congressman Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in his upcoming administration. This appointment signals a potential shift in environmental policy and regulatory approach. Here are the key points about this nomination:

• Zeldin is a former Republican congressman who represented New York’s 1st congressional district from 2015 to 2023.
• He lacks extensive experience in environmental policy, having not served on committees with direct oversight of environmental issues during his time in Congress.
• Zeldin has a lifetime score of only 14% from the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a record of frequently voting against environmental legislation.

Trump stated that Zeldin would “ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions” to “unleash the power of American businesses.” The administration aims to maintain “the highest environmental standards, including the cleanest air and water on the planet” while pursuing deregulation.

Zeldin is expected to focus on restoring “U.S. energy dominance” and revitalizing the auto industry.

He may be tasked with rolling back several Biden administration environmental regulations, particularly those targeting power plant pollution and vehicle emissions. There are plans to end the pause on constructing new natural gas export terminals and potentially withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

Zeldin joined Trump and Sen.-elect Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania for a roundtable on agriculture during Trump’s campaign in September. Zeldin praised Trump for addressing the “threat” of foreign entities buying U.S. agricultural land and highlighted Trump’s trade policies, including the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which prioritized American farmers and strengthened supply chain resiliency.

Of note to the biofuels sector, In November 2015, Zeldin and several other members of Congress sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concerns about the proposed 2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The lawmakers worried that the proposed 2016 RVOs would require blending more ethanol than could be absorbed by the E10 gasoline market, effectively “breaking through” the blend wall. There were concerns that exceeding the blend wall could drive up the price of E10 gasoline for consumers. Ultimately, the EPA did finalize 2016 RVOs that were lower than originally proposed in the RFS statute, but still represented an increase over previous years. The agency attempted to balance the competing interests and technical constraints in the fuel market.

Meanwhile, discussions are underway about possibly relocating the EPA headquarters outside of Washington, D.C.

Environmental advocates criticized the nomination, viewing it as a potential regression in environmental policy. Zeldin’s record includes opposition to several climate-related bills and support for increased fossil fuel production.

Zeldin’s appointment as EPA Administrator will require Senate confirmation.

Top Takeaways from Zeldin’s Confirmation Hearing for EPA Lead and the Impact On Ag

Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:01:59 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, underwent hours of testimony Thursday, commenting on everything from year-round E15, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) and the controversial WOTUS rule. When pressed about climate and environmental policies, Zeldin stated he believes climate change is real.

During the hearing, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) asked Zeldin to ensure access to year-round E15, but he did not make a definitive commitment, responding cautiously. Zeldin stated that while he couldn’t prejudge the outcomes of any processes, he acknowledged the importance of the issue to Sen. Ricketts and President Trump.

His exact words were: “Senator, while I can’t prejudge outcome of processes to follow across the board, I know how important this issue is to you and I know how important this is to President Trump.”

Despite this non-committal response, leaders of ethanol industry groups, including the American Coalition for Ethanol and Growth Energy, expressed appreciation for Zeldin’s commitment to doing his part to ensure nationwide availability of year-round E15.

Zeldin’s Stance on Ethanol
Zeldin’s stance on ethanol has been a point of interest, given his previous opposition to ethanol usage mandates during his time in Congress. Zeldin was asked about upholding legal deadlines for new Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) standards, which are part of the RFS program.

Ricketts criticized the Biden administration for setting RVOs below industry production levels and not meeting the law’s deadlines. Zeldin expressed his commitment to implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as written by Congress.

He stated, “If confirmed, I commit to you that I will faithfully execute the law as written by Congress.” This statement was seen as an attempt to reassure senators from agricultural states who are concerned about the EPA’s implementation of biofuel policies.

Zeldin addressed his past opposition to ethanol usage mandates. He acknowledged that his views on the issue have evolved since his time in Congress.

Zeldin stated, “My position has evolved. I’m not in the same place I was years ago.”

He explained that his perspective has changed due to conversations he’s had with farmers, producers, and others in the industry. Zeldin emphasized that he now has a better understanding of the importance of ethanol to rural economies and energy security.

To further illustrate his evolving stance, Zeldin mentioned that he has visited ethanol plants and spoken with industry stakeholders.

He said, “I’ve learned a lot more about ethanol. I’ve visited plants. I’ve talked to a lot of people in the industry.”

WOTUS Rule Opposition
The EPA nominee has been vocal about his opposition to the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. He expressed strong criticism of the Biden administration’s decision to reinstate and expand the WOTUS rule. Zeldin argued that the WOTUS rule represents federal overreach and places an undue burden on farmers, landowners, and local governments.

He stated that the rule would negatively impact agriculture, construction, and other industries by expanding federal authority over water bodies and wetlands. The congressman emphasized that the expanded definition of WOTUS would lead to increased regulations and permitting requirements for activities on private property. He contended that this expansion of federal control would hinder economic growth and development in rural areas.

In his statement, Zeldin called for the repeal of the WOTUS rule, advocating for a more limited interpretation of federal jurisdiction over water bodies. He supported efforts to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority in implementing the rule, arguing that states should have more control over their water resources.

Zeldin’s position on WOTUS aligns with many Republican lawmakers who view the rule as an example of government overreach and excessive environmental regulation. His statements reflect a broader debate about the balance between environmental protection and economic development in water resource management.

Zeldin’s Criticism of EPA Staff
Zeldin made notable comments regarding EPA staff. He criticized EPA employees for what he described as their attempts to undermine the Trump administration’s policies.

Specifically, Zeldin accused some EPA staff members of leaking information to the media and actively working against the administration’s agenda. He expressed concern that these actions were hindering the implementation of policies and creating unnecessary obstacles for the agency’s leadership. The congressman’s remarks were part of a broader discussion on government accountability and the role of career civil servants in executing administration directives.

Zeldin emphasized the importance of loyalty to the current administration’s goals, regardless of personal political beliefs.

Climate Change and Climate Policies
As for his position on climate change, the hearing showed the political dynamics and implications surrounding the issue considering President-elect Donald Trump’s stance, particularly as seen through an exchange involving Zeldin with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). Sanders emphasized the existential threat of climate change, framing it as a matter transcending politics. Whitehouse voiced concern about Zeldin’s ability to resist fossil fuel industry influence.

Zeldin stated, “I believe that climate change is real,” marking a departure from previous EPA leaders during the first Trump administration and from President-elect Trump, who has previously labeled climate change a “hoax.”

Regarding EPA’s role in regulating carbon dioxide emissions, Zeldin referenced a 2007 Supreme Court decision, noting that while the ruling grants the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it does not mandate such action. He emphasized that the agency is “authorized, not required” to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

When pressed on specific climate policies, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels, Zeldin refrained from committing to particular actions. He expressed a desire to collaborate with scientists and policymakers, stating, “I don’t sit before you as a scientist.”

In response to inquiries about campaign donations from fossil fuel companies, Zeldin asserted that financial contributions would not influence his decisions, emphasizing his commitment to impartiality in his role as EPA Administrator.

Of note:
Throughout the hearing, Zeldin underscored the importance of protecting the environment without hindering economic development. He stated, “We can, and we must, protect our precious environment without suffocating the economy.”

Economists React to Zeldin’s Nomination

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

In the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor and prior to this week’s hearing, Farm Journal asked economists about what Zeldin’s past stance on ag issues could mean if he’s approved as the next EPA adminstrator.

Based on Zeldin’s track record, 60% of economists said they don’t think Zeldin’s policies will be positive for agriculture. 40% said they do think his policies will be good for agriculture.

In the survey, economists said:

“I expect there to be fewer new regulations in the Trump Administration. This is positive for agriculture.”
“I imagine many of the tax credits for new demand (either low carbon fuels or carbon programs) will be on the table to be cut.”
“He generally is not a fan of the RFS. My guess is that he will impact the RFS only marginally.”
“A deregulatory agenda could be positive for many farmers, but Zeldin has a record that is not favorable toward biofuels. How he (and the President) will address biofuel issues is unclear--in the first Trump administration, there were many large disputes between pro-biofuel and pro-fossil fuel interests.”
“His track record is negative toward liquid biofuels, which is a big part of our domestic demand.”

Related News:

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

USDA Releases Approximately $20 Million of Paused Inflation Reduction Act Funding That Had Been Under Review

Fri, 21 Feb 2025 02:36:01 GMT

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced today that USDA will release the first tranche of funding that had been paused due to a review of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allocations.

Following White House directives, USDA is honoring existing contracts with farmers, releasing approximately $20 million for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).

“American farmers and ranchers are the backbone of our nation,” said Rollins, citing regulatory burdens, environmental policies, and inflation as major challenges. She criticized the Biden administration’s handling of IRA funding but affirmed commitments to farmers who had already made investments.

.@SecRollins announced that @USDA will honor contracts that were already made directly to farmers and release the first tranche of funding that was paused due to the review of funding in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.https://t.co/xQdmZFzkwp
— House Committee on Agriculture (@HouseAgGOP) February 21, 2025

This marks the initial phase of released funding, with further announcements expected as USDA continues its review to ensure taxpayer dollars support farmers and ranchers rather than unrelated initiatives.

Earlier this week, while speaking at the Top Producer Summit in Kansas City, Rollins told AgriTalk’s Chip Flory asked about the paused IRA funding earlier this week, specifically the status of EQIP.

“Any commitments that were made previously, we will, of course, fulfill those commitments,” Rollins told Flory. “That’s the only way to do it. Everything that is forward leaning, that’s what we’re really focusing on reevaluating in the current environment.”

You can hear the full interview between Rollins and Flory below.

Your Next Read:
30 Minutes With Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins In Her First Week On the Job

90% of Ag Economists Say RFK Jr. Wouldn't Be Positive for U.S. Agriculture

Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:54:50 GMT

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s confirmation hearings for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) are scheduled for this week.

President Trump’s pick to lead the HHS Department is scheduled to appear twice this week:

Senate Committee on Finance: Wednesday, Jan. 29, at 10 a.m. ET.
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP): Thursday, Jan. 30, at 10 a.m. ET.

Kennedy’s nomination has generated significant attention and controversy, primarily due to his past statements and positions on various health-related issues:

Vaccine concerns: Kennedy’s views on vaccines have been scrutinized by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. He has been accused of promoting doubts about vaccine efficacy, particularly during a 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa.
Abortion stance: Some Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns about Kennedy’s pro-abortion views.
Agricultural impact: There are worries about Kennedy’s potential impact on the agriculture sector, including calling glyphosate “a poison.”

Ag Economists Weigh In

Farm Journal’s Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor survey asked in January if Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, positive for U.S. agriculture? 90% of the economists surveyed said no.

One economist said, “His disrespect for science is troubling.” Another economist weighed in by saying, “His positions on crop protection will be an interesting storyline to watch early in 2025.”

Another economist has concerns about the division it will create within agriculture, saying, “I fear there will be policy to limit/restrict crop protection tools currently available to producers and his advocacy will continue to foster division between organic/regenerative producers and more commercial producers.

However, not all economists think RFK Jr. would be bad for agriculture. In fact, one economist thinks it could actually restore confidence in agriculture.

“Improving health outcomes, even if over a longer time period, should improve the consumer opinion of agriculture and be a net gain overall,” said one economist in the anonymous survey.

U.S. Farmers Express Concern Over Potential Role in Trump Administration

Farmers across the United States are voicing alarm about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s potential influence on agriculture and food policy in a Trump administration. Key concerns include:

Policy Positions” Advocacy for banning widely used chemicals like glyphosate, shifting to organic and regenerative farming, and opposing genetically modified crops could disrupt large-scale farming practices.
Regulatory Changes: Potential regulatory overhauls, such as “weaponizing” agencies, may create uncertainty for genetic technologies and USDA guidelines.
Economic Impact: Farmers fear decreased productivity, increased costs, and potential rises in food prices due to a move away from conventional farming methods.
Contrast with Trump’s First Term: Kennedy’s vision contradicts Trump’s earlier deregulatory efforts, causing confusion among farmers who supported his pro-agribusiness policies.

“Make America Healthy Again”

Kennedy’s push to “Make America Healthy Again” could come with some benefits for certain segments of U.S. agriculture. That includes pushing for American food providers to start using more animal fats versus seed oils.

“People who enjoy a burger with fries on a night out aren’t to blame, and Americans should have every right to eat out at a restaurant without being unknowingly poisoned by heavily subsidized seed oils. It’s time to Make Frying Oil Tallow Again,” he said in an Instagram post in October.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by RFK Jr. (@robertfkennedyjr)

Looking Ahead: Possible Challenges in Confirmation

Kennedy’s confirmation process could face a number of challenges, including:

Kennedy can only afford to lose three Republican votes if the Democratic caucus remains united in opposition.
Some Republicans, including incoming HELP Committee chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.), have expressed concerns about Kennedy’s views.
Hawaii Governor Josh Green has traveled to Washington to lobby against Kennedy’s confirmation.

Upcoming Meeting with Senators

Kennedy has been meeting with senators from both parties to make his case. He met with dozens of Republican senators and plans to meet with key committee members last week. Meetings with Democratic senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and John Fetterman (D-Pa.) were also scheduled.

Economists Say Brooke Rollins Would Be Positive for Agriculture

Just last week, Brooke Rollins, President Trump’s nominee for Agriculture Secretary , powered through her confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Ag Committee . The Senate still needs to vote on her confirmation, but no timeline has been given on when that vote will happen yet.

During her testimony last week, she addressed several issues during her confirmation hearing on Jan. 23 in an attempt to position herself as a supporter of diverse agricultural interests and commit to protecting producers.

In her opening statement, Rollins outlined several key priorities for USDA if confirmed, as is expected:

Rapid deployment of disaster and economic assistance authorized by Congress.
Addressing current animal disease outbreaks.
Modernizing and realigning USDA.
Ensuring long-term prosperity for rural communities.

80% of economists in the January Ag Economists’ Monthly say if confirmed, Rollins is a positive pick for U.S. agriculture.

“Rollins knows ag and has Trump’s ear,” said one economist.

“Her close connection the President and reasons outlined in the letter sent by 427 ag organizations and businesses on January 15th,” said another economist.

20% of economists say Rollins wouldn’t be positive for U.S. agriculture.

One economist said, “USDA focused heavily on under-served producers during the Vilsack era and my sense is that producers wanted the Secretary to come from a production ag view; whereas Rollins come at it more from an overall domestic policy view. Also, feel the administration isn’t helping her out with the Deputy Secretary nomination. Producers don’t see themselves in the upcoming USDA leadership.”

Senate confirms historic Treasury Secretary; Transportation Vote on Deck.

The Senate confirmed Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary in a 68-29 vote, with support from 16 Democrats and independents. Bessent becomes the highest-ranking openly LGBTQ official in U.S. history and is set to play a key role in upcoming tax and trade debates.

Meanwhile, Sean Duffy is poised for confirmation as Transportation Secretary in a vote at noon ET today, following a unanimous procedural vote (97-0) Monday.

Your Next Read:

Trump 2.0: From Early Executive Orders to Delaying Tariffs Against China, Here’s What to Expect as Trump Takes Office